A $376 Ticket, Thousands in Taxpayer Legal Fees, and How Franklin Prosecuted Political Speech

Editor’s Note: This article relies on police reports, sworn testimony, billing records, public statements, and court filings, including materials submitted in pending proceedings. Where referenced, proposed legislation is discussed for contextual and explanatory purposes only and does not constitute a legal determination or finding. Allegations described in court filings remain unadjudicated unless otherwise noted.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Franklin Community News

Fast Facts

Citation Amount: $376 municipal disorderly conduct citation
Documented Legal Costs: At least $1,547 in taxpayer-funded legal fees; additional costs incurred but not fully disclosed
Speech at Issue: Political commentary criticizing elected officials; police documented no threats
Initial Police Finding: Officers initially determined there was no crime and the matter appeared resolved
Escalation Trigger: Enforcement action followed direct involvement by Mayor John Nelson and other elected officials
Prosecutorial Review: The Milwaukee County District Attorney declined state criminal charges (“no process”)
Citation Timing: Municipal citation issued minutes after a court declined to remand the defendant in an unrelated case
Charging Authority: Officer testified under oath that the citation was ordered by Franklin Police leadership, not issued independently
Public Admissions: Mayor publicly acknowledged that state charges were declined but a municipal citation was pursued
Current Status: The case and related conduct are the subject of pending court filings and ongoing review

Mayor John Nelson, Alderperson Michelle Eichmann, and County Supervisor Steve Taylor at the Center of a $376 Prosecution That Cost Taxpayers Thousands

What began as a single political post criticizing local elected officials evolved into an over years-long municipal prosecution that raises serious questions about retaliation, free speech, and the use of government power against political critics.

The case ended with a $376 disorderly conduct citation. But public records show the City of Franklin devoted dozens of attorney hours, multiple prosecutors, and extensive police resources to pursue the matter—far beyond what is typical for a municipal forfeiture.

At its core, the case asks whether political criticism of elected officials—absent any threat or call to violence—can lawfully be prosecuted as disorderly conduct, and whether municipal enforcement mechanisms were escalated in retaliation for protected speech.

The Post That Triggered the Case

The disorderly conduct citation was based on the following online post, introduced at trial and reproduced verbatim from the Franklin Police Department incident report (pp. 4–5):

**“‘For the greater good’ is a phrase that refers to the idea of doing something for the benefit of the public good. However, the phrase has been used to justify catastrophic events that have resulted in significant human suffering and death.

According to the Frontier Institute ‘Greater Good’ advocates believe that ‘an action is moral if it results in more good than harm. It’s okay to kill one man to save ten. It’s moral to commit one evil act as long as it’s in service of something noble. Throughout history, many catastrophic events have been justified in the name of the ‘greater good.’ These often resulted in significant human suffering and death.’

Sound familiar Franklin and Oak Creek…do you get the analogy to Taylor, Nelson, Eichmann, and Zimmerman?

Let’s work for the benefit of the residents of Franklin and Oak Creek who are represented by Steve F. Taylor—residents who deserve an honest, ethical, and transparent government. Not the Greater Good.”**

The post contains no threat, no call to violence, and no instruction to harm anyone. It is explicitly political commentary criticizing elected officials and advocating for ethical government.

Police Response: Initially No Crime

According to the Franklin Police Department incident report (No. 24-028171):

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann initially submitted an anonymous complaint and declined to be listed as a victim.
Officers contacted the author, who explained the post, acknowledged how it could be perceived, and voluntarily edited it in front of officers.
Officer Dakota Elm reported that Eichmann was “happy” after learning the post had been edited and had “nothing further” (Report p. 3).

At that point, the incident appeared resolved. No citation was issued, no arrest was made, and police documented no criminal conduct.

Escalation After Mayoral Intervention

The escalation of this case was not initiated by police findings, but by elected officials unhappy with the content and frequency of political reporting.

According to the Franklin Police Department report, Mayor John Nelson personally summoned Officer Dakota Elm to City Hall on October 15, 2024—after officers had already concluded there was no crime. During that meeting, Nelson explicitly urged criminal enforcement based on speech alone, stating:

“If I were in your shoes, I’d write up State DC and Bail Jumping.”

The police report further documents that Mayor Nelson stated the author “needs to feel scared” and that his behavior needed to be “corrected.” These remarks were not tied to any specific threat or unlawful conduct, but to dissatisfaction with ongoing political commentary and investigative reporting.

The report also notes that Mayor Nelson described the speaker as “mentally unstable” and raised speculative fears of future violence, despite officers documenting that there were no direct threats and no evidence of criminal intent. These inflammatory statements were made without factual basis and after police had already treated the incident as resolved.

Following this meeting:

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann reversed her initial decision and agreed to be listed as a victim, despite earlier telling officers she was satisfied once the post was edited.
Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor was contacted and agreed to be listed as a victim by phone, even though the post itself did not direct threats at him.

The report explicitly states:

“It must be noted that there was no direct threat in this case.”

The charging decision changed only after direct political intervention—an indicator commonly cited in retaliation cases involving misuse of law enforcement authority.

DA Declines Prosecution — City Presses On

A supplemental police report dated October 29, 2024 states:

“This case was reviewed by ADA John Letsch and he did not prosecute this case.”

— Supplemental Report, p. 8

Despite the District Attorney declining to bring charges, the City of Franklin continued the matter as a municipal prosecution. The case was later transferred to South Milwaukee Municipal Court due to conflicts involving Franklin officials who were also listed as victims.

Multiple Prosecutors, Mounting Costs

Open-records responses show the City engaged multiple attorneys and devoted extensive legal time to matters including:

Reviewing federal court filings unrelated to the citation
Analyzing public-records disputes
Reviewing unrelated restraining order cases
Communicating with elected officials involved as complainants
Preparing responses to media inquiries

These activities went far beyond proving the narrow elements of a municipal disorderly conduct ordinance.

Key point: Taxpayers funded legal work that extended well beyond adjudicating whether a single Facebook post violated a local ordinance.

The Trial and the Court’s Ruling

At trial, the municipal judge:

Found the defendant guilty
Ruled that prior conflicts with elected officials were irrelevant
Declined to consider constitutional issues raised pretrial
Stated that the outcome would not change even if those motions had been reviewed

The court nonetheless acknowledged that:

There was no direct threat
The speech involved political commentary
Officials felt threatened based on interpretation, not conduct

Indicators of Retaliation in the Record

Court filings, police reports, sworn transcripts, public statements, and court-submitted exhibits together reveal multiple, overlapping indicators of retaliation rather than neutral law enforcement.

1. Protected Speech as the Trigger

The enforcement action was triggered by investigative blog posts and commentary published by Franklin Community News that were critical of Mayor John Nelson, Supervisor Steve Taylor, and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann. The content was political in nature, addressed matters of public concern, and contained no threats or calls to violence.

This characterization is consistent with Mayor Nelson’s own sworn statements during a separate internal investigation when he was a lieutenant with the Waterford Police Department, where he acknowledged that Busalacchi “runs his own little blogging page which attacks me almost every day” and complained about the use of open-records requests and publication of obtained records.

2. Express Hostility Toward a Political Critic

In sworn testimony and public forums, Nelson repeatedly characterized Busalacchi as a problematic critic rather than as a safety concern. He referred to him as a “keyboard coward” and “basement blogger,” complained that his reporting was published frequently, and admitted blocking records requests because the material would be posted online. These statements demonstrate animus toward protected journalistic and political activity, not concern about criminal conduct.

3. Public Statements at Intergovernmental Cooperation Council Meetings

Public remarks by Mayor Nelson at Intergovernmental Cooperation Council (ICC) meetings further contextualize the disorderly conduct citation.

At a November 11, 2025 ICC meeting, Nelson discussed social media criticism, referring to “trolls” and “psychopathic bloggers,” and expressly referenced the petitioner as someone who “came from Greendale.” During that discussion, Nelson explored how municipalities might control or respond to online criticism, including through official social media policies and coordinated messaging. These remarks reflect continuing hostility toward political critics and an interest in using governmental mechanisms to manage or counter protected speech.

At a November 24, 2024 ICC meeting, Nelson described a situation in which he complained to law enforcement about a critic posting what he called “dark, weird things,” stated that the posts reminded him of “mass shootings… Columbine, Oklahoma City,” and then remarked, “and he got cited for that,” while also acknowledging that the District Attorney declined state charges. The statements appear to reference the petitioner’s case and directly link the municipal citation to online speech rather than unlawful conduct.

Taken together, these public remarks support the inference that:

Nelson personally initiated law-enforcement responses to online criticism;
The disorderly conduct citation was explicitly tied to speech;
Political criticism was framed as harassment demanding police intervention; and
Municipal enforcement was viewed as a tool to “hold people accountable” for speech rather than conduct.

4. Initial Police Determination of No Crime

On October 14, 2024, Officer Dakota Elm and another officer reviewed the blog content, interviewed the author, and explicitly stated there was “nothing there.” Alderwoman Eichmann initially declined to be listed as a victim, and the incident appeared resolved.

5. Political Pressure to Escalate

The following day, Mayor Nelson summoned Officer Elm to his office and urged criminal charges, stating the speaker needed to “feel scared” and have his actions “corrected.” Eichmann and Taylor also contacted Elm and reinforced their desire for enforcement action. Only after these interventions did the charging posture change.

6. Timing Linked to Court Proceedings

The disorderly conduct citation was issued on October 24, 2024—minutes after a court declined to remand the defendant into custody in an unrelated matter where the same unreleased police report had been used in an unsuccessful attempt to detain him.

Further context emerged in sworn testimony given on November 20, 2025, when Officer Dakota Elm testified under oath that the decision to issue the municipal citation was not his independent determination. According to Elm, Franklin Police Chief Craig Liermann ordered him to issue the municipal disorderly conduct citation after the Milwaukee County District Attorney declined to pursue state charges. This testimony was memorialized in the petitioner’s declaration submitted as Exhibit 96 in the pending John Doe proceeding.

Officer Elm’s sworn statement confirms that:

The District Attorney had already reviewed the same underlying facts and declined prosecution;
The municipal citation was issued only after that declination;
The charging decision originated from police leadership rather than from the responding officer’s independent assessment.

This sequence further supports the inference that the municipal citation functioned as a fallback enforcement mechanism following the failure of state-level charges, rather than as a neutral application of municipal law.

7. Suppression and Withholding of Evidence

Requests for police reports and audio/video recordings were denied for months on the basis of potential criminal charges that were never filed. When records were eventually produced, key recordings—particularly from meetings involving the Mayor and other elected officials—were missing, despite being referenced in reports.

Where the Taxpayer Money Went

Public records show the City of Franklin’s legal costs associated with prosecuting this single municipal citation far exceeded the value of the forfeiture itself.

The citation carried a forfeiture amount of $376. Billing records from Assistant City Attorney Eduardo Borda, billed at $85 per hour, reflect at least $1,547 in legal time devoted to matters involving the defendant. This figure does not include time billed by Special Prosecutor Roger Pyzyk, whose invoices were not produced in response to open-records requests.

Costs Directly Related to the Citation

Approximately $663 of the documented legal time plausibly related to the core prosecution, including:

Processing and transferring the case between courts
Reviewing police reports and evidence
Court scheduling and trial preparation
Appearing at the municipal hearing

Even limited to these items, the City spent nearly twice the value of the citation to pursue it.

Costs Beyond the Scope of the Citation

The majority—approximately $884—was spent on collateral matters, including:

Reviewing unrelated federal litigation
Analyzing injunction petitions and other court records
Constitutional and public-records law research
Reviewing potential criminal charges that were never filed
Monitoring media coverage and online commentary
Communicating with elected officials involved as complainants

None of these activities were necessary to determine whether a single online post violated a municipal ordinance.

Additional Filed Evidence and Ongoing Review

Franklin Community News has obtained and reviewed a November 24, 2025 Supplemental Filing of Newly Discovered Evidence submitted to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in a pending John Doe proceeding. The filing consists of more than 20 pages and 17 supporting exhibits and was submitted after the release of previously withheld police reports, audio recordings, and sworn testimony that were not available at the time of earlier court proceedings.

According to the filing, the newly discovered materials include unredacted police reports, partial audio recordings from October 14, 2024 interviews, sworn testimony from Franklin Police Officer Dakota Elm, and documentation confirming that the Milwaukee County District Attorney declined state prosecution before a municipal citation was issued. The filing alleges that elected officials, including Mayor John Nelson, County Supervisor Steve Taylor, and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, coordinated with Franklin Police leadership to escalate a disorderly conduct report after it was initially treated as non-criminal.

The supplemental filing further documents that the municipal disorderly conduct citation was issued at 3:34 p.m. on October 24, 2024, minutes after a Milwaukee County court declined to remand the defendant into custody in an unrelated proceeding, and after prosecutors had already marked the matter “no process.” The filing characterizes the municipal citation as a fallback enforcement action following the failure of state-level charges.

The court submission also raises concerns about delayed disclosure of police reports, the withholding of audio and video evidence, and the absence of recordings from key October 15, 2024 meetings involving elected officials and law enforcement. According to sworn testimony cited in the filing, the decision to issue the municipal citation was made by Franklin Police leadership after the District Attorney declined prosecution, rather than by the responding officer as an independent charging decision.

These allegations remain unadjudicated. They are included here because they align with, and provide additional documentary context for, the chronology and escalation already reflected in police reports, sworn transcripts, public statements, and billing records discussed in this article. The existence of the filing does not constitute a judicial finding of wrongdoing, but it places the disorderly conduct prosecution within a broader evidentiary record now under formal court review.

Why This Matters

This case raises broader concerns about how municipal authority is used when enforcement intersects with political criticism.

Free Speech

Political criticism of elected officials lies at the core of First Amendment protections. Speech does not lose constitutional protection because officials find it uncomfortable, repetitive, or personally offensive.

Retaliation and Misuse of Office

The record shows that enforcement escalated only after direct intervention by elected officials, following an initial police determination that no crime had occurred. Statements about making a speaker “feel scared,” correcting behavior, and using municipal charges after prosecutors declined criminal charges are hallmarks of retaliatory enforcement.

A Broader Pattern of Municipal Enforcement Against Expression

The Franklin case is not occurring in isolation. In a separate and contemporaneous matter in Muskego, Wisconsin, a 77-year-old resident was cited for disorderly conduct after writing a political message in sidewalk chalk outside a post office. That citation, which carried a substantial municipal forfeiture, is being challenged on the grounds that the chalk writing constituted peaceful political expression rather than unlawful conduct. The case has prompted public debate about the reach of disorderly conduct ordinances when applied to nonviolent expressive activity and highlights similar tensions between municipal enforcement authority and constitutional speech protections.

While the facts and parties differ, the Muskego case underscores a shared question raised by the Franklin prosecution: whether local disorderly conduct ordinances are being used narrowly to address genuine disturbances, or expansively in ways that risk penalizing expression protected by the First Amendment.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Concerns

The facts surrounding the Franklin disorderly conduct prosecution also raise concerns consistent with what lawmakers and courts commonly describe as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. SLAPPs are legal actions—often brought or sustained by government entities or officials—that are less about prevailing on the merits and more about burdening, deterring, or silencing speech on matters of public concern.

In December 2025, Wisconsin legislators introduced Assembly Bill 701, which would adopt the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). The proposed legislation recognizes that legal actions targeting speech, press activity, or participation in governmental processes can impose severe financial and procedural burdens even when the claims ultimately fail. The bill would create an expedited mechanism to dismiss claims arising from protected expression and require courts to broadly construe protections for speech on matters of public concern.

Under the standards articulated in AB 701, conduct protected from retaliatory litigation includes communications in governmental proceedings, commentary on matters under governmental review, and the exercise of free speech or press rights on issues of public concern. The legislation further reflects a policy judgment that prolonged litigation, discovery, and legal expense can themselves function as punishment when directed at critics or journalists.

While AB 701 was introduced after the events described in this article and does not govern this case, its framework provides a useful lens for understanding the concerns raised here. The Franklin prosecution involved political commentary about public officials, escalated enforcement after that commentary, prolonged legal proceedings despite prosecutorial declination, and substantial public expense in pursuit of a low-level municipal citation.

This article does not assert that the Franklin case constitutes a SLAPP as a matter of law. Rather, it highlights that the factual pattern aligns with the types of concerns AB 701 was designed to address: the use of legal process in ways that risk deterring public participation, investigative reporting, and criticism of those in power.

Taxpayer Impact

Thousands of dollars in public funds were spent pursuing a $376 citation—much of it devoted to collateral issues arising from political speech rather than the narrow elements of the ordinance.

Chilling Effect

Using municipal enforcement to punish or deter political speech risks chilling public participation, particularly when critics are journalists or residents engaged in watchdog reporting.

What Comes Next

With the standard municipal appeal window expired, the remaining legal avenue is certiorari review in circuit court, where a judge may consider whether:

The law was applied correctly
Discretion was properly exercised
Constitutional issues were improperly dismissed

Regardless of the outcome, the record shows this case was never just about a Facebook post.

It was about how power is exercised, how public resources are deployed, and whether political speech remains protected when it becomes inconvenient for those in office.

Additional Reporting Note:

Franklin Community News has received information from two other Franklin residents who report that they were issued municipal citations following speech critical of local officials. Those matters are separate from the case detailed in this article and are currently under investigation and verification by FCN. No conclusions are drawn at this stage, but the reports are noted to reflect that questions surrounding the use of municipal enforcement in response to protected speech may extend beyond a single incident. FCN will report further as facts are confirmed.

Related Context:

Franklin Community News has previously reported that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office is conducting an investigation involving Mayor John Nelson and that search warrants were issued in connection with that inquiry. No charging decision has been announced, and Nelson has not been charged with a crime. The existence of the investigation is noted here solely for context and is separate from the disorderly conduct case examined in this article.

Conclusion

The record in this case—drawn from police reports, sworn testimony, public statements, billing records, and court filings—shows a consistent and troubling pattern. Political speech critical of elected officials was initially deemed non-criminal, then escalated only after direct intervention by those same officials. When state prosecutors declined to pursue charges, municipal enforcement followed. When the facts did not change, the charging authority did.

This article does not ask readers to accept allegations at face value. It lays out a documented chronology and allows the evidence to speak for itself. Whether ultimately vindicated or rejected by the courts, the questions raised here are matters of public concern: how municipal power is exercised, how law enforcement discretion is influenced, and whether political critics are afforded the same protections as everyone else. Those questions extend beyond a single citation or a single individual. They go to the health of local democracy and the boundary between legitimate governance and retaliation for speech.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable

— for the greater good.

Join Us at:

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Search This Blog